1. Is the Chair of Peter Vacant? An Argument for Sedevacantism
2. Second Sunday after Epiphany
3. Saint Hilary
4. Family and Marriage
5. Articles and notices

Dear Reader:
As today the Church commemorates the Baptism of Our Lord, so tomorrow, the Church commemorates the third Epiphany mystery, the Wedding Feast of Cana. Christ’s presence at the wedding feast is not coincidence, but has a meaning that draws from God’s Will revealed in the very first chapter of Genesis and continues through out the Old Testament. Though loss of salvation can be pulled from neglect of the sabbath (the Lord’s Day), chastisement comes from the abuse of the marital act outside the direct Will of God. As one reads in Genesis, male and female He created them and said to increase and multiply. And when the sons of God (those who had the faith) married the daughters of men (those without the faith and teach their children sinful ways) the world was found wicked and because they married and were given in marriage (fornication and adultery) God repented making man and destroyed the land with a flood. Again, God gave the command: Increase and multiply. But when Cham looked at the nakedness of his father, he was cursed by God (denied grace). Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because of homosexuality. The Israelites were struck dead more for their fornication (and they rose up to play), than the idol—the idol was the excuse to fornicate—forbidden expressly by the Sixth Commandment just delivered to Moses and by Moses to the Hebrews. Except for repentance, David would have been rejected for the sin of adultery and Solomon caused the loss of the united Davidic kingdom because of his fall into marriage abuse. The Church, taking the Gospel, has placed marriage on a pedestal and fought for the sanctity of marriage. It took centuries for the Church and her success was seen by the 1500’s when Henry VIII was refused an annulment. The Church does this because she must also preserve her purity and her faithfulness to Christ—this is why the Church sides on marriage rather than annulment. This is why she is so insistent on purity of faith. This is why she is so insistent on unity and union with her Spouse, and her members holding that same unity (cf. Ephesians 5:21ff). It should be obvious that one who departs from the unity of faith and who promotes adultery is not a member of the Church—just as Henry VIII was declared as well as all those before and after him. Better all of England be lost than Christ. We know Christ said it would be the same at the latter days:

And as in the days of Noe, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. For as in the days before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, even till that day in which Noe entered into the ark, and they knew not till the flood came, and took them all away; so also shall the coming of the Son of man be. (Matt. 24:37-39)
At the same time, a couple must invite Christ to the wedding—He is not there unless invited, i.e., it must be sacramental, so Christ was invited to the wedding feast of Cana. Sadly, so many Catholics do not understand that their sin in cohabitation is the cause of God rejecting them and that they will be separated from Him and so will their children because He holds true marriage as the key to fulfilling His Will and will have nothing to do in supporting fornication. May our young people who may contemplate marriage seek, therefore, Christ’s presence so they, too, can be blessed with the miracle of changing natural attraction into supernatural love.
As always, enjoy the readings and commentaries provided for your benefit. —The Editor
________________
Is the Chair of Peter Vacant?

An Argument for Sedevacantism

by Rev. Courtney Edward Krier

Sixth Contradiction: Holy Mass: A Sacrifice or a Meal?

The Latin language guaranteed the unity of the faith because it allowed all peoples of all nations to assist at the Sacrifice of the Mass and all would know what they were witnessing; but none could claim it as their own for it belonged to all and not just one people. The destruction of the unity in language was already expressed in Genesis, chapter eleven (verses 1-10), where the following is read:

And the earth was of one tongue, and of the same speech. And when they removed from the east, they found a plain in the land of Sennaar, and dwelt in it. And each one said to his neighbour: Come, let us make brick, and bake them with fire. And they had brick instead of stones, and slime instead of mortar. And they said: Come, let us make a city and a tower, the top whereof may reach to heaven: and let us make our name famous before we be scattered abroad into all lands. And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of Adam were building.
And he said: Behold, it is one people, and all have one tongue: and they have begun to do this, neither will they leave off from their designs, till they accomplish them in deed. Come ye, therefore, let us go down, and there confound their tongue, that they may not understand one another’ s speech. And so the Lord scattered them from that place into all lands, and they ceased to build the city. And therefore the name thereof was called Babel, because there the language of the whole earth was confounded: and from thence the Lord scattered them abroad upon the face of all countries.

What built up the Body of Christ, was now destroyed as what united (Latin) was taken away and the vernacular became the source of division as various peoples with different languages in the same region fought over what language services should be said in the church.
Also, in the administration of the Sacraments Latin was a guarantee that the Sacrament was, according to form, absolutely valid without question. This was one of the intents of the Council of Trent, after the Innovators devised various liturgies, and to stop abuses that led to Catholics not knowing whether a priest was truly offering Holy Mass.
Faced with great opposition to his Novus Ordo, Giovanni Montini replied on November 19, 1969:

4. How could such a change be made? Answer: It is due to the will expressed by the Ecumenical Council held not long ago. The Council decreed: “The rite of the Mass is to be revised in such a way that the intrinsic nature and purpose of its several parts, as also the connection between them, can be more clearly manifested, and that devout and active participation by the faithful can be more easily accomplished. . . .
6. The reform which is about to be brought into being is therefore a response to an authoritative mandate from the Church. It is an act of obedience. It is an act of coherence of the Church with herself. It is a step forward for her authentic tradition. It is a demonstration of fidelity and vitality, to which we all must give prompt assent. . . .
10. You will see for yourselves that they consist of many new directions for celebrating the rites. Especially at the beginning, these will call for a certain amount of attention and care. Personal devotion and community sense will make it easy and pleasant to observe these new rules. But keep this clearly in mind: Nothing has been changed of the substance of our traditional Mass. Perhaps some may allow themselves to be carried away by the impression made by some particular ceremony or additional rubric, and thus think that they conceal some alteration or diminution of truths which were acquired by the Catholic faith for ever, and are sanctioned by it. They might come to believe that the equation between the law of prayer, lex orandi and the law of faith, lex credendi, is compromised as a result.
11. It is not so. Absolutely not. Above all, because the rite and the relative rubric are not in themselves a dogmatic definition. Their theological qualification may vary in different degrees according to the liturgical context to which they refer. They are gestures and terms relating to a religious action—experienced and living—of an indescribable mystery of divine presence, not always expressed in a universal way. Only theological criticism can analyze this action and express it in logically satisfying doctrinal formulas. The Mass of the new rite is and remains the same Mass we have always had. If anything, its sameness has been brought out more clearly in some respects.
12. The unity of the Lord’s Supper, of the Sacrifice on the cross of the re-presentation and the renewal of both in the Mass, is inviolably affirmed and celebrated in the new rite just as they were in the old. The Mass is and remains the memorial of Christ’s Last Supper. At that Supper the Lord changed the bread and wine into His Body and His Blood, and instituted the Sacrifice of the New Testament. He willed that the Sacrifice should be identically renewed by the power of His Priesthood, conferred on the Apostles. Only the manner of offering is different, namely, an unbloody and sacramental manner; and it is offered in perennial memory of Himself, until His final return (cf. De la Taille, Mysterium Fidei, Elucd. IX).
13. In the new rite you will find the relationship between the Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist, strictly so called, brought out more clearly, as if the latter were the practical response to the former (cf. Bonyer). You will find how much the assembly of the faithful is called upon to participate in the celebration of the Eucharistic sacrifice, and how in the Mass they are and fully feel themselves “the Church.” You will also see other marvelous features of our Mass. But do not think that these things are aimed at altering its genuine and traditional essence.
14. Rather try to see how the Church desires to give greater efficacy to her liturgical message through this new and more expansive liturgical language; how she wishes to bring home the message to each of her faithful, and to the whole body of the People of God, in a more direct and pastoral way.
15. In like manner We reply to the third question: What will be the results of this innovation? The results expected, or rather desired, are that the faithful will participate in the liturgical mystery with more understanding, in a more practical, a more enjoyable and a more sanctifying way. That is, they will hear the Word of God, which lives and echoes down the centuries and in our individual souls; and they will likewise share in the mystical reality of Christ’s sacramental and propitiatory sacrifice.
16. So do not let us talk about “the new Mass.” Let us rather speak of the “new epoch” in the Church’s life.

The ending paragraph rejects calling the New Mass the New Mass, though he had begun his General Audience with: We wish to draw your attention to an event about to occur in the Latin Catholic Church: the introduction of the liturgy of the new rite of the Mass. Yet, he confirmed that there was a departure from the past: The Mass will be celebrated in a rather different manner from that in which we have been accustomed to celebrate it in the last four centuries, from the reign of St. Pius V, after the Council of Trent, down to the present. Even though it points to Trent, it is historically accurate to say that the Tridentine Mass had been celebrated in its present form previously to Trent, going back to the earliest documentation, such as Pope Cornelius (+253) as even Joseph Jungmann references (Cf. The Mass of the Roman Rite, 37-39) with little variation and that being in chiefly in the propers or additions, such as the Gloria and Credo. The arguments that there is no complete Latin text of the Roman Liturgy until after the sixth century does not mean that there was no Roman Liturgy or that it is not what it was in the sixth century (Pope Gregory the Great (590-604).

There is also Canon 3 of the Council of Trent (Sess. XXII), which stated:

If anyone says that the sacrifice of the Mass is only one of praise and thanksgiving, or that it is a mere commemoration of the sacrifice consummated on the Cross, but not one of propitiation; or that it is of profit to him alone who receives; or that it ought not to be offered for the living and the dead, for sins, punishments, satisfactions, and other necessities: let him be anathema. (cf. DB 950)

And declaring to all faithful Catholics the teaching:

And since it is fitting that holy things be administered in a holy manner, and this sacrifice is of all things the most holy, the Catholic Church, that it might be worthily and reverently offered and received, instituted the sacred canon many centuries ago, so free from all error [can. 6], that it contains nothing in it which does not especially diffuse a certain sanctity and piety and raise up to God the minds of those who offer it. For this consists both of the words of God, and of the traditions of the apostles, and also of pious instructions of the holy Pontiffs. (Cf. DB 950)

Adding the following Canon (6): If anyone says that the canon of the Mass contains errors, and should therefore be abrogated: let him be anathema. (Cf. DB 953).

It became obvious that the Novus Ordo was being foist upon a populace that was expected to be ignorant of the faith, ignorant of the liturgy, and agreeable to change as a sign of progress. It must have been forgotten that the Liturgical Movement was not founded to change the Liturgy, but to teach an understanding of the Liturgy. The years—starting with Gueranger and renewed under Pope St. Pius X—of the Liturgical Movement was to make available a vast array of books and papers on the origin and meaning of the Liturgy which assisted the clergy and laity to deepen their knowledge of the Mass, not a desire to change the Mass. Receiving this gift and better appreciating the value of the Mass, they were now told that what they were previously encouraged to read to become familiar with Holy Mass was meaningless and the Mass needed to be changed to have some meaning—a meaning that completely conformed to what these texts previously taught was the same concept the Protestant Innovators had of the liturgy. In fact, it came to light that there were seven Protestant moderators participating in the changes:

October 1966, for the first time, the members of non-Catholic Christian confessions were admitted to be observers at the general adunanze of the Consilium. The Observers were Professors Raymond George (World Council of Churches), Canon Ronald C. Jasper and Dr. Massey Hamilton Shepherd (Anglican Communion), Rev. Friedrich Wilhelm Künneth (World Lutheran Federation), and Brother Max Thurian (Taizé). [CONSILIUM, «VII Sessio Plenaria “Consilii”», Ephemerides Liturgicae 80 (1966) 402.]
For example, A. Bugnini recorded the fact that various Protestant confessions were asked for their opinions and suggestions on the reform of the lectionary in one Plenary Audience of the Members and periti. This is recorded in his memoirs as secretary of the Consilium. This obviously shows that the Consilium was in close communication with various separated Christians in order to create a lectionary revision that would be acceptable and anticipated by confessions other than the Catholic Church, and thus be truly universal. [A. BUGNINI, The Reform of the Liturgy, 415-416.]
Furthermore, their opinions and interaction were sought on some other topics. [CONSILIUM, «Septima sessione plenaria “Consilii”», Notitiae 2 (1966) 312-313.] For instance, they aided Coetus VIIIbis in the composition of the various petitions and intercessions in the Liturgy of the Hours at the official request of the Consilium. Lastly, the responsories of the Divine Office took some of their inspiration from the mixed Catholic-Protestant community of Taizè, especially from the contributions from one of its leaders, Brother Max Thurian . [A. BUGNINI, The Reform of the Liturgy, 556-557.] In effect, these reforms and a few others relied on collaboration between the Consilium and non-Catholics in order to adopt seemingly successful modern forms of worship which could speak to modern man and inculcate the wisdom of communities that had long been worshiping in the vernacular. For many years these communities had composed texts by principally relying on readings of the Bible and creative-prayer writing. These facts are very important for an additional reason. The participation of non-Catholic observers functioned efficiently and productively for the Consilium. In contrast, as will be explained further below, the Consulta, Ordinary Audiences (adunanze ordinaria), and Consilium Praesidentiae were groups erected by Cardinal Lercaro, following the approval of Paul VI in private audiences. Nonetheless, M. Barba and A. Bugnini have both noted that these theoretical organizations accomplished little and can be said to have been inefficient and ultimately failures. The observers, on the other hand, were able to assist and speak ad instar peritorum (even if they were not official Members), and were deemed by all as very helpful.
They were able to assist successfully in the reform process. They performed a function greater than what was initially foreseen by their establishment through the Secretary of State. On the other hand the Consulta and Consilium Presidentiae were ineffective appendages to the organ of the Consilium.
(To be continued)
————————–
Dr. Pius Parsch
The Church’s Year of Grace (1957)

Second Sunday after Epiphany

The Marriage Feast of Cana

Holy Mass (Omnis terra). The Mass opens with a joyous adoration scene. God appears; and we greet Him with a song of homage and adoration (Intr.). Psalm 65 is well woven into the Mass formulary (Intr. Off., Comm. in the earlier expanded form); it is an Easter hymn and reminds us that Sunday is a little Easter. The Collect, a prayer for peace, has little or no connection with the day’s major theme (no doubt it dates to the disturbed times of the barbarian invasions). Its timeliness at present is, of course, quite evident.
In the Epistle, the Church speaks of the various ecclesiastical offices. Everyone should render a good account of the work or function entrusted to him and not be constantly seeking other positions. The fulfillment of one’s calling in life, the wise and prudent restriction of one’s efforts to the same, that is the mark of true Christian greatness. In a few pregnant sentences the second half of the Epistle describes the vast areas encompassed by love of neighbor. Thus, the Epistle contains important directives both for the internal and the external growth of the Christian community (lessons that are also implied in the miracle at the wedding).
The Gradual links Christmas with Easter; God sent His “Word” (the incarnation) and rescued us from destruction (the redemption). This accounts for the Easter-like exultation of the Alleluia. The Gospel does not merely offer instruction, rather it illustrates the operation of the sacraments. The Cana miracle is repeated at every Mass, likewise the mystica1 marriage of the Church with Christ. The Offertory continues the theme of Easter joy (Ps. 65); and the Secret, succinct and classical in form, points out the relation between Offertory and Communion: May God sanctify (i.e., consecrate) the gifts we have offered and in return cleanse us of the stain of sin.
…